• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rosenstein warns Americans to 'exercise caution' about anonymous reports

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,055
Reaction score
33,368
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Rosenstein warns Americans to 'exercise caution' about anonymous reports | Fox News


Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Thursday evening that Americans should "exercise caution" before believing anonymously sourced reports, an apparent reference to ongoing leaks surrounding the investigation into alleged connections between Russian officials and President Trump's campaign.




"Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories any stories attributed to anonymous 'officials,'" Rosenstein said in a statement, "particularly when they do not identify the country — let alone the branch or agency of government — with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated."
He must have been reading the partisanship at DP. :lol:
 
Of course people should exercise caution when reading reports based on unnamed sources. They should also take into consideration

1- the track record of the publication
2- the track record of the journalists writing the story
3- does the information have other sources collaborating much the same thing?
4- investigative journalism wouldn't survive a week without unnamed sources as whistle blowers and information revealers could not do so if they had to reveal their names and risked losing their jobs for it
5- discovering the truth behind Watergate and other government scandals would not have been possible without those same unnamed sources
 
Of course people should exercise caution when reading reports based on unnamed sources. They should also take into consideration

1- the track record of the publication
2- the track record of the journalists writing the story
3- does the information have other sources collaborating much the same thing?
4- investigative journalism wouldn't survive a week without unnamed sources as whistle blowers and information revealers could not do so if they had to reveal their names and risked losing their jobs for it
5- discovering the truth behind Watergate and other government scandals would not have been possible without those same unnamed sources

That may well be true, but we have seen in this Presidency, stories made up out of whole cloth designed to damage the administration...We see people whom are supposed to be journalists unmask their total bias, and disdain for anyone whom shows the slightest bit of support for a republican administration...And we have news outlets like MSNBC shaping, disseminating, and driving the narrative. Hint, they aren't supposed to do that....

Now, things are going to get real for the administration for sure, but, what happens if? What happens if there is nothing here? What happens if we find out that all of this was a concerted campaign to coup the government by democrats? What should happen then? Anything?
 
Of course people should exercise caution when reading reports based on unnamed sources. They should also take into consideration

1- the track record of the publication
2- the track record of the journalists writing the story
3- does the information have other sources collaborating much the same thing?
4- investigative journalism wouldn't survive a week without unnamed sources as whistle blowers and information revealers could not do so if they had to reveal their names and risked losing their jobs for it
5- discovering the truth behind Watergate and other government scandals would not have been possible without those same unnamed sources

This. You can't just accept something but you shouldn't ignore it either.

That's the beauty of being an anonymous source. They may be scared for their own safety but still want to do the right thing without being a target. This is how snitches don't get stitches.
 
That may well be true, but we have seen in this Presidency, stories made up out of whole cloth designed to damage the administration...We see people whom are supposed to be journalists unmask their total bias, and disdain for anyone whom shows the slightest bit of support for a republican administration...And we have news outlets like MSNBC shaping, disseminating, and driving the narrative. Hint, they aren't supposed to do that....

Now, things are going to get real for the administration for sure, but, what happens if? What happens if there is nothing here? What happens if we find out that all of this was a concerted campaign to coup the government by democrats? What should happen then? Anything?

What do you want to do then? Regulate the media and make it a law to have every single source named? More government in the media?
 
That may well be true, but we have seen in this Presidency, stories made up out of whole cloth designed to damage the administration...We see people whom are supposed to be journalists unmask their total bias, and disdain for anyone whom shows the slightest bit of support for a republican administration...And we have news outlets like MSNBC shaping, disseminating, and driving the narrative. Hint, they aren't supposed to do that....

Now, things are going to get real for the administration for sure, but, what happens if? What happens if there is nothing here? What happens if we find out that all of this was a concerted campaign to coup the government by democrats? What should happen then? Anything?

We live in the age where we have news outlets with a viewpoint .... and that works both ways.

I respectfully suggest that we have already gone far beyond the idea that there is nothing there. If there is nothing there than why is a central figure - Michael Flynn - trying so mightily to make a deal to save himself? If there is nothing there - what could Flynn have to offer?
 
This. You can't just accept something but you shouldn't ignore it either.

That's the beauty of being an anonymous source. They may be scared for their own safety but still want to do the right thing without being a target. This is how snitches don't get stitches.

Well said.
 
What do you want to do then? Regulate the media and make it a law to have every single source named? More government in the media?

Not at all...But, one of my what if's was just a thought exercise concerning a coup by democrats...In that scenerio, I think that prosecutions would be in order, just as if it were happening in the inverse, no?
 
We live in the age where we have news outlets with a viewpoint .... and that works both ways.

I respectfully suggest that we have already gone far beyond the idea that there is nothing there. If there is nothing there than why is a central figure - Michael Flynn - trying so mightily to make a deal to save himself? If there is nothing there - what could Flynn have to offer?

Flynn is in trouble for sure, but it should be said, NOT for any supposed dealing with Russia on the elections as far as I know...Flynn's troubles are of his own failures to disclose ties with Turkey....

This is what I mean...This thing started out as some ridiculous narrative that Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and now much to exactly what democrats wanted, it has progressed into what ever process crime they can find....

Is that the precedent going forward? Should political parties just go after what ever President gets elected and run them out in a never ending scandal cycle? If so we are done!
 
Interesting, Bob Woodward has voiced similar concerns, even admonishing the media to dial down their rhetoric. I think he's now under the same bus as Assange and Michael Hastings.

Bob Woodward?

HA! He's with Dershowitz, crouching underneath a big desk in the Oval office, enjoying his second act in American political life as a Trump-apologist.
 
Not at all...But, one of my what if's was just a thought exercise concerning a coup by democrats...In that scenerio, I think that prosecutions would be in order, just as if it were happening in the inverse, no?

Prosecutions for who?

You say certain media creates this false narrative that might be a concerted campaign to coup the government, yet you don't want to regulate it. So either they have the freedom to create whatever narrative they want or they don't. If the democrats do coup the government, isn't that always the point of it all? To gain control. If you don't want the media to lean a certain way to help one party, then you want to regulate the media. Or what?
 
Flynn is in trouble for sure, but it should be said, NOT for any supposed dealing with Russia on the elections as far as I know...Flynn's troubles are of his own failures to disclose ties with Turkey....

This is what I mean...This thing started out as some ridiculous narrative that Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and now much to exactly what democrats wanted, it has progressed into what ever process crime they can find....

Is that the precedent going forward? Should political parties just go after what ever President gets elected and run them out in a never ending scandal cycle? If so we are done!

Clintons impeachment for "crimes" started out as something far far different than where it ended up. That is the nature of an investigation.
 
Now, things are going to get real for the administration for sure, but, what happens if? What happens if there is nothing here? What happens if we find out that all of this was a concerted campaign to coup the government by democrats? What should happen then? Anything?
Not at all...But, one of my what if's was just a thought exercise concerning a coup by democrats...In that scenerio, I think that prosecutions would be in order, just as if it were happening in the inverse, no?

Take off your tin foil hat and stop acting hysterical. This is not a normal republican administration and as such it is not being treated as a normal republican administration. Trump is a dangerous man child that even republicans despised until November 8th happened and he became a useful idiot. Opposing a feverishly incompetent baffoon like Trump and his agenda is as American as apple pie and is a bipartisan effort. Stop acting like the media reporting the stupid things Trump does is some liberal coup.

This is what I mean...This thing started out as some ridiculous narrative that Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and now much to exactly what democrats wanted, it has progressed into what ever process crime they can find....

Is that the precedent going forward? Should political parties just go after what ever President gets elected and run them out in a never ending scandal cycle? If so we are done!

I trust you were just as vocal and upset when the witch hunt was against Obama and Hillary? No evidence of any wrong doing but years and years of Benghazi hearings and a never-ending slew of conspiracy theories and hyperbole.
 
I always have been careful of anonymous news. But you used to be relatively sure of its having been well vetted, if nyt or wp published it. That he is seemingly warning of publications in the wp is interesting in confirming my impression.
I haven't trusted the NYT since the Berkeley balcony collapse.
 
What do you want to do then? Regulate the media and make it a law to have every single source named? More government in the media?

Or maybe the LMSM should stop running dan rather reports and do some actual fact checking and news before running their 5 minute sound bite that anonymous source says X
and it turns out to be 100% wrong.

how about a little bit of ethics and integrity in journalism.
 
This. You can't just accept something but you shouldn't ignore it either.
No harm in ignoring it. The truth will come out eventually. I also ignore much of the media coverage surrounding unfolding events because it tends to be terrible and riddled with errors as each outlet tries to get the scoop on the other.
 
No harm in ignoring it. The truth will come out eventually. I also ignore much of the media coverage surrounding unfolding events because it tends to be terrible and riddled with errors as each outlet tries to get the scoop on the other.

Patience is required, and that's in short supply these days. Is a story better if it has three anonymous sources rather than just one? Somehow I don't think so...
 
Flynn is in trouble for sure, but it should be said, NOT for any supposed dealing with Russia on the elections as far as I know...Flynn's troubles are of his own failures to disclose ties with Turkey....

This is what I mean...This thing started out as some ridiculous narrative that Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and now much to exactly what democrats wanted, it has progressed into what ever process crime they can find....

Is that the precedent going forward? Should political parties just go after what ever President gets elected and run them out in a never ending scandal cycle? If so we are done!

No. But this is what Trump pushed us to. The house was going to investigate this matter. And if they had and said nothing happened then I'd readily accept that. But instead they partnered with the lead of the investigatory body and played politics and got him to leak certain info in a certain way to narrate a false story. So there goes that. If James Comey and the FBI had a full investigation and said there was no collusion, I'd accept that. But instead Trump tried to strong arm Comey and then fired him all the while lying about why he was firing him. So there goes that.

Now we have the special council. Right here and right now I can happily agree that if he comes back and says "We can't find any laws that were broken, at best we found some actions that were just a bit off, but no laws broken" Then you won't hear anything more about Russia from me.

I'm not sure if most liberals will let it drop if the special council says nothing wrong occurred, but I am.

One of the big problems here is that you don't see just how similar this is on both sides. If Hillary won, republicans would still be investigating her emails and Benghazi even though it's been investigated to death and the findings have been reported.
 
Or maybe the LMSM should stop running dan rather reports and do some actual fact checking and news before running their 5 minute sound bite that anonymous source says X
and it turns out to be 100% wrong.

how about a little bit of ethics and integrity in journalism.

I agree but the only way to do that is to make them do it and I don't support that.

So the best option is to have a better educated populace that can do more than just take whatever crazy headline they read at face value.
 
Back
Top Bottom